stat946w18/Synthetic and natural noise both break neural machine translation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* A person's ability to read this text comes as no surprise to the Psychology literature | * A person's ability to read this text comes as no surprise to the Psychology literature | ||
*# Saberi \& Perrott (1999) found that this robustness extends to audio as well. | |||
*# Rayner et al. (2006) found that in noisier settings reading comprehension only slowed by 11 \%. | |||
*# McCusker et al. (1981) found that the common case of swapping letters could often go unnoticed by the reader. | |||
*# Mayall et al (1997) shows that we rely on word shape. | |||
*# Reicher, 1969; Pelli et al., (2003) found that we can switch between whole word recognition but the first and last letter positions are required to stay constant for comprehension | |||
Revision as of 23:02, 28 February 2018
Introduction
- Humans have surprisingly robust language processing systems which can easily overcome typos, e.g.
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.
- A person's ability to read this text comes as no surprise to the Psychology literature
- Saberi \& Perrott (1999) found that this robustness extends to audio as well.
- Rayner et al. (2006) found that in noisier settings reading comprehension only slowed by 11 \%.
- McCusker et al. (1981) found that the common case of swapping letters could often go unnoticed by the reader.
- Mayall et al (1997) shows that we rely on word shape.
- Reicher, 1969; Pelli et al., (2003) found that we can switch between whole word recognition but the first and last letter positions are required to stay constant for comprehension